Extra Dimensions & Forces: Ask Spencer for Help

  • Thread starter Thread starter Enceph
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions
Enceph
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Ok I know that relativity used a fourth dimension to explain gravity. I figured string theory forums would be a place to start for my question.

Has there ever been a theory or evidence that made use of extra dimensions being the reason behind strong, weak and EM forces? I just don't feel like using a search engine when I can make you guys help. :devil:

Thanks guys.
-Spencer
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I was wondering about this too.

Its said string theory needs 6 extra dimensions for degrees of freedom. Could these be forces? Totting it up I thought prehaps we get space (x, y, z), time, electric, magnetic (perpendicular to electric? Not so sure about this one), strong, weak, gravity, spin and/or quintessence (instead of magnetic)

Is this barking up the wrong tree? Inquiring minds would liek to know :D
 
alt

In short, can dimensions and an all-pervasive substance explain all physical phenom such as by 'projecting' particles and forces by it's interaction with itself. I'm referring to the actual pervasive backdrop-space, or maybe aether; either-being physical. I am trying to think of alternate theories; I wanted to know about dimensions so I posted here.
-Spencer :smile:
 
Last edited:
In my thoughts

x, y & z are three dimensions

gravity is the forth dimension

electro-magnetism is a fifth dimension

wormholes are the 6th dimension. (wormholes are bridges or tunnels that can link distant regions of space, ie cosmic shortcuts which are created by rips in spatial fabric, which is ether isn't it? in which these rips are inside extruded 'strings', these strings of bubble surround the tear acting as a protective shield. So strings make it possible for space to rip).

Time which is related to gravity is probably another.

we live on a membrane that floats in a higher dimension of space alongside parallel universes.
 
Heh. . . nevermind. I'm confused.
 
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...

Similar threads

Back
Top